You are on page 1of 2

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

196063 December 14, 2011

ORLANDO A. RAYOS, FE A. RAYOS-DELA PAZ, represented by DR. ANTONIO A. RAYOS, and ENGR. MANUEL A. RAYOS, Petitioners, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.

FACTS: A petition for review on certiorari and declaratory relief,1 assails the Order of 6 January 20112 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, denying reconsideration of the trial courts Order of 11 March 20103 which denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioners Orlando A. Rayos, Fe A. Rayos Dela Paz, and Engr. Manuel A. Rayos. The present case originated from a complaint for eminent domain filed by respondent City of Manila against Remedios V. De Caronongan,et. Al. the City of Manila alleged that it passed Ordinance No. 7949 authorizing the City Mayor to acquire "by expropriation, negotiation or by any other legal means" the parcel of land co-owned by defendants, which is covered by TCT No. 227512 and with an area of 1,182.20 square meters. The City of Manila offered to purchase the property at P1,000.00 per square meter. In their Answer,6 defendants conveyed their willingness to sell the property to the City of Manila, but at the price ofP50,000.00 per square meter which they claimed was the fair market value of the land at the time. On 7 December 2009, petitioners Orlando A. Rayos, Fe A. Rayos Dela Paz, and Engr. Manuel A. Rayos filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that (1) Ordinance No. 7949 is unconstitutional and (2) the cases of Lagcao v. Labra7 and Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. Municipality (now City) of Pasig, Metro Manila8apply squarely to the present case. On 11 March 2010, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The trial court ruled that the motion to dismiss did not show any compelling reason to convince the court that the doctrine of stare decisis applies. Petitioners failed to demonstrate how or why the facts in this case are similar with the cited cases in order that the issue in this case be resolved in the same manner. On 6 January 2011, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. ISSUE: Is the petition for review on certiorari and declaratory relief be admitted to the Supreme Court? RULING: An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable.12 An order denying a motion to dismiss does not finally dispose of the case, and in effect, allows the case to proceed until the final adjudication thereof by the court. In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. Clearly, no appeal, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, may be taken from an interlocutory order. In case of denial of an interlocutory order, the immediate remedy available to the

aggrieved party is to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In this case, since the trial courts order denying the motion to dismiss is not appealable, petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail such order, and not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. For being a wrong remedy, the present petition deserves outright dismissal. This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.

DECISION: The petition is denied.